quote of the day

“So we’ve got beliefs P and Q. Let’s say Q is “obviously unreasonable” by virtue of beliefs R(1), R(2), R(3), and so forth, when taken as a set. Let’s leave aside considerations of individual or joint sufficiency. Call this set {R}. So {R} implies that Q is false ({R} –> ~Q). To say that belief P does not make belief Q obviously unreasonable is merely to say that P is not a member of {R}. And I think this is what we’re arguing over. Figuring out whether P is or is not contained in {R} may or may not be worth doing, depending on the contents of the argument.”

~ our own William Brafford in the comments to his latest post, doing his best to sully the reputation of internet comboxes everywhere.